Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7076425" data-attributes="member: 23935">I'm always somewhat hesitant to dig into armchair analysis of such play examples, especially for improv-based games, because the analysts are able to pick at nits while missing out on the emotional table-state and known player qualities and not suffering the time and performance pressures.  But here we go.Absolutely! and the best way to mechanically address this leverage would be through a bonus to the roll!  Oh wait, that's the wrong type of rule mechanics for this game.  Although not forbidden, such probability adjustments are discouraged.  Follow the story where the dice go and if the situation is trivial, don't bother with a roll is closer to its credo.So based on your description I would expect no roll would be necessary to appropriately persuade the dog to take the food.  If a roll is called for, then obviously there are other factors at play which will be revealed on a 9-. Like the fact the dog isn't a dog, isn't in the condition presented, isn't alone, will attack regardless, or perhaps the dog will flee to its death rather than deal with a human.And this is my primary complaint with the system.  It places undue reliance on the GM to adhere to the game's principles and provides few checks the players can use to detect or correct for variance.  A GM can trivally insert soft moves and moves coloured with his own expectations to guide players around by the nose with similar effect to an outcome-based game like D&D's DM using illusionism and fudging.  This is made worse in some ways because there is no secondary check method (such as rolling in the open) that can be used to constrain the behaviour.  Quite often, the GM would need to drift the situation quite far to get off genre and thus become detectable.50 mph for a couple hundred meters, tops.  Typical running speed is half that and typical herd travel speed is half that again.  I'd expect the tag to shift from far to near or at worst close next round which makes them a threat but not an immediate one.I think it'd apply here if the player had rolled a 7-9 total not a 6-.  Partial success being of course, you have gained the dog's trust and it is open to you; how do you plan on saving its (and your own) life?I feel a 6- should remain a failure.  "The dog backpadels from you baring its teeth; the beast has obviously had bad interactions with humans in the past.  Gaining its trust is going to take much longer if it is at all possible. <Cue herd of reindeer> what do you do?"There is very limited material differences between presented result and a theoretical 7-9 result assuming the same threat introduction move was made and the player got the primary goal: the dog became accessible.  The failure was short-circuited.  It coupld be because the first thing that came to mind and the GM needs to keep the momentum going.  It could be the GM is an animal-lover and would prefer a good outcome.  It could be because the GM knows the player is an animal-lover and would take a bad outcome more poorly than is desirable.  It could also be the GM has future plans for the dog (and the alien egg growing inside it bwah haha) and doesn't want to see that opportunity lost.  Why doesn't matter much.  The failure was short-circuited.</blockquote>

Verification